...Since Bill Gates is no longer the richest man in the world...

A MEXICAN IS! (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0, ... ss&feed=24)



waddya say to THAT!?

No. Canada needs to build a high wall to prevent all the canucks from leaving the good life and free healthcare, to come to the Land Of The Bush.

BTW...when was the last time that Canada invaded anybody?

Afganistan, about a year ago... although, hardly an invasion.

Not that I support any of this foo-ferall our friendly neibours to the south are engaged in 'over there', but I'm pleased that if we (Canada) are doing anything in the middle east, its routing taliban from areas of Afganistan where they are hiding. And its not like the normal Canadian U.N. stuff, either... for us citizens, its not as palatable as our 'normal' roll like in Cyprus, where we just 'police'. This is far more combat-oriented. I know it doesn't compare to the loss of USA soldiers life, but over 60 Canadian soldiers have died in Afganistan so far. So yeah, we are, kind of, 'at war' too.

Not sure how well publicised in the USA news that information is... do the majority of the E.A. USA residents see reference to the above in the news very often at all? Just curious.

StefanIsMe (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:41 pm Afganistan, about a year ago... although, hardly an invasion.

Even the war in Afghanistan is damn contraversial here (as war should be) ... although I think most people are at least of the opinion that now that we're there, it's too late to change our minds, and we've got to finish what we start.

Of course, it helps that Afghanistan is making real progress, and is actually being pacified at a respectable rate ... although getting the rest of NATO more involved would help. Canada, America, and England as the only frontline forces isn't quite enough, especially with England and America tied up in Iraq. Convincing Pakistan to get serious about flushing the Taliban out of their territory would be nice too.

Hmmmmm. Not sure about your comment of only Canada, USA and Britain in afghanistan. A New Zealand Special forces NCO was awarded the Victoria Cross this years (The Commonwealth's top bravery award) for valour under fire in Afghanistan. So don't be like the Big countries news media and forget that some of the little countries have forces out there also.

I don't think anyone's denying that a lot of countries have forces over in Afghanistan. What we (in Canada) tend to hear is stories like this, (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/1 ... pitch.html) which imply there are only four countries with forces in the south (US, British, Dutch, and Canadian), where the fighting is heaviest.

I am also not denying there is fighting going on throughout that country.

Nowhere in the US constitution does it say that Americans are entitled free health care.

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:18 am Nowhere in the US constitution does it say that Americans are entitled free health care.

...er what about "LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

...isn't that written somewhere? Without medical care you die early.

...by the way, if you can get through the socialistic breauracracy (sp?), America generally has Medicade and that is better than any health insurance offered that you can buy or get with any company. Even if you don't have insurance and you have devastating illness Medicade will go back and pick up bills from when the illness began if you can qualify.

To qualify, however, you muust sell all of your worldly goods and give it to your debtors. A good attorney can help you through this. Don't bash the attorneys, either. You might as well let them have your money as let the government have it, since the attorneys who work for the government have not generally been successful as those in the private sector.

Everyone dies. The entitlement mentality is ruining this country. You want health insurance, go earn enough money to pay for it. It is a luxory, like cars and televisions. (Re: the transgender girl in Jail)

The basic concept behind our constitution is that you provide for yourself. There is no guarantee that you will be provided food, which is neccessary to maintain life, yet somehow the government should provide you with healthcare? Silly notion.

The rush to equalize the availabilty of health insurance in the 1990's has virtually destroyed the American medical community. HMO's and the like are horrible, yet they are better than what would be available after a government mandate.

The expectation is that you shall go forth and earn your keep.

With that said, I truly believe that we have a responsibility to care for the weak, aged, and infirm. And fortunately there are systems in place for MOST of these people. No system is perfect.

Most of the readers of this board own computers. Are they willing to sacrafice some possessions like their computers, or IPods, or bowling nights to provide their own healthcare? I think not. Make it the goverment's responsibility.

To be completely transparent: I am a single male in my 40's. I average around $33,000 per year in salary, and I live in Los Angeles which is expensive. I want health insurance. I pay for it. Fortunately i don't use it very often. I do not own a home and likely never will. If my insurance rates go up, then I will have to cut something else out of the budget. BUT IT IS MY RESPONSIBILTY.

Socailism is a bad thing. It leads to all things being mediocre.

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:29 pm Everyone dies. The entitlement mentality is ruining this country. You want health insurance, go earn enough money to pay for it. It is a luxory, like cars and televisions. (Re: the transgender girl in Jail).

You REALLY need some cancer. I'm sure then you wont feel that healthcare is a luxury. A plague would be nice too -- I'm sure you'll be wishing that someone had tried harder to get everyone innoculated before it became a serious problem.

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:29 pm The basic concept behind our constitution is that you provide for yourself.

Do you support the second amendment? You'll note that it is an AMENDMENT -- the point being that the constitution can be changed. The original concept behind the constitution didn't give people the unfettered right to own a tool whose ownly purpose is to make other people die. So the constitution can certainly be changed to include access to at least basic levels of medical care.

Until anyone can practice medicine and prescribe drugs, the market is not free -- so the government is responsible for guaranteeing access. Now a free market, that would be different. That would absolve the government of any responsibility. But right now, they wont let people practice medicine or buy and sell drugs without special licenses and permits. So they ARE responsible because they're controlling access to healthcare and preventing the market adjusting itself naturally.

The Lurker (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:29 pm Socailism is a bad thing. It leads to all things being mediocre.

Socialism beats the hell out of fascism, which is how healthcare is legislated now. A free market would certainly be better still -- but that would require allowing anyone to practice medicine freely. So unless you're out there campaigning to ban the AMA, the FDA, and to make all drugs and medical procedures available on the market from anyone who cares to supply them at whatever price they care to charge, shut the fuck up, because you don't know shit. Right now, the government is the one preventing people from accessing healthcare, and it's the one giving doctors a legal monopoly on healthcare. The feds have to either make healthcare available to everyone in a socialist fashion, or they get the hell out of the way and let people practise medicine in a free market fashion, with REAL competition.

The government is either responsible for healthcare, or it's not -- but it can't be both ways.